| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1 | | Date: | , September 28, 2005 06:11:36 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
Howdy Marc,
The 'glide time' of various items/values impacting in the economy by adding
costs or cancelling prices or withheld regarding cancelling prices or adding to
costs later on etc which you have expressed is the core of the nature of things
revealed in the theorem.
To try to exact the items and their behaviour is much the same as trying to work
out the last dollar in the gap to substantiate the theorem in my view.
What you are saying is the very nature of the enigma that the theorem exposes.
We dont have to agree on every item and I suspect that Douglas left us the
theorem so we didnt end up making a fool of ourselves before the world squabbling
over minor details. What he has left us is substantial enough to gain
credibility and respect, and to gain a better insight which is the intention in
this 'thread' but Douglas was not all-inclusive in his presentations.
I can see many things you do and as to to how well they fit any one elses
conceptions is not the basis of whether they exist or not.
My concerns are not regards the pre-1950-60 world, and the theorem which fits it
well, but the extention or extrapolation if one likes of the negatives in the
system exposed substantially by the A plus B theorem, whether its an identifiable
item like insurmountable debt or something global-macro like the fulfilment of
the policy behind the international banking system when it becomes a direct and
visible global government/ownership over all life and property. Us creatures may
be on an endless treadmill and may think this will go on forever but the
'Planners' clearly have an agenda that goes beyond an efficient treadmill.
The potentials are all there in Douglas's writing and much of it was in its
early stages. Nothing needs taking away from what Douglas left us but there
needs to be a facing up to the extention of those realities, to what they are
becoming. A total focus on the technical makes on blind to crystalised policy.
Peter H
"Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
> Disagree all you want but the truth of the matter is that Banks do not =
> spend back the money they earn fast enough to compensate for the =
> difference between the demand created by principal + interest and the =
> correspondng amount of money in circulation. What is possible is that =
> the payment schedules are calculated in such a way that what is demanded
=
> is available given a constant growth in lending. However this is truly =
> unrealistic because in real life such would assume a perfect concert in
=
> lending between all banks. In any event when the volume of lending =
> slows, the timing required in schedules are affected with a tendency to
=
> manifest a deficit of money leading to a spike of debt failure.
>
> To say that this has nothing to do with A + B when prices of goods have
=
> everything to do with A + B and credit availability and minimum price =
> thresholds have everything to do with outstanding liability per economic
=
> cycle, is to have a very narrow vision of reality and of Douglas.
>
> Marc
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Hattersley
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> I rather disagree with you.
>
> As Governor of the Bank of Canada Graham Towers once said "A Bank =
> manufactures credit, just as a steel plant manufactures steel".
>
> The difference is that, because bank credit is in a sense "pretend" =
> money, it cannot be given away, only rented out, so that the Bank =
> charges for printing the tickets, and the community works to put on the
=
> performance.
>
> The idea that the "gap" between purchasing power and prices has =
> anything to do with bank interest is a red herring that has confused =
> explanations of Social Credit endlessly, including on this list. There =
> are moral reasons for saying usury is wrong, but they have nothing to do
=
> with Douglas's A+B analysis, which deals with principal, not interest.
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 1970-10123-99 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Gauvin
> To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com ; socialcredit@elistas.com ; William B. =
> Ryan
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:12 AM
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> But the banks do not spend back 100% of the money they take in, =
> therefore they do not compensate fully for the difference in the spread
=
> between the +ve feedback on loans and the +ve feedback on deposits. the
=
> interest function continues to make money scarcer than the aggregate =
> demand in the form of debt.
>
> Banking taken as a business is unlike any other business and =
> interest is unlike any other "price" on any other good in society. =
> Banking is power under the guise of being a business and the banking =
> sector shows this in being the only sector that in the aggregate thrives
=
> both during economic crisis and economic boom. It is the only oligarchy
=
> that doesn't require ownership of a unique resource to establish itself,
=
> it is an oligarchy that establishes itself by making a concept i.e. =
> promissory notes a scarce commodity. It does so through the combination
=
> of a unique recipe where layman ignorance, circumstance, psychology, =
> hope, desire, honour and fear are combined with social convention in a =
> dynamic that transcends the grasp of most of their fellow human beings.
>
> The banking system is one that starts the cycle of damage while =
> monopolizing the means to address suffering. The banking system is =
> scourge the result of a tremendous error in history the error of =
> applying exponential control loops as a control of a complex system. It
=
> was initiated when the potential to grow out and beyond the limits of =
> its unjust demands existed and when the consequences of exponential =
> control loops where not known. We are now in an age where systems =
> theory has developed to the point that banking systems and their faulty
=
> design represent elementary examples of folly.
>
> What is not simple and herein lies the challenge, is the =
> tremendous psychological hold exponential debt money has once it has =
> become as ingrained and fundamental part of the workings of all aspects
=
> of society. Nonetheless, the cause of the nightmare remains deceptively
=
> simple.
>
> Interest is +ve feedback and it affects our behaviour in a =
> destabilizing way and if we do not free ourselves of it we are likely =
> not going to survive.
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William B. Ryan
> To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com ; socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:11 PM
> Subject: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> "But the interest paid by the banks is much less than
> that exacted on loans..."
> ------------------------
> --------------------------
>
> It is less but there are also ordinary business
> disbursements from banks for salaries, utilities, etc.
> plus dividends to stockholders. Net interest received
> is merely the gross profit from which expenses are
> deducted.
> -
>
> "...and you have not accounted for the fact that
> lending is the only source of new money to pay
> yesterday's interest."
> ------------------------
> --------------------------
>
> It is also the "only source of new money" to pay
> yesterday's phone bill, yesterday's utility bill, and
> yesterday's wage bill.
>
> The flux and reflux of loan principal is something
> different than transfer payments from one party to
> another in ordinary transactions; they are
> conceptually in different categories.
>
> The banker as businessman is in the second category
> when he receives interest or makes payments from his
> income; he keeps his books like any other businessman
> and must cover his checks while operating his business
> with the intention of making a profit, like any other
> businessman.
>
> The socialist is dead wrong but less wrong than the
> tunnel-visioned monetary reformer; he sees the problem
> in profit, the "evil" to be eradicated.
>
> M -> C -> M + P; his version of the paradox is posed
> thusly: If the capitalist spends M with the intention
> of getting back M + P, from where does P arise?
>
> His more generally stated but only slightly less
> simplistic solution: Abolish profit.
>
> The socialist expresses his utter contempt for the
> monetary reformer who says abolish interest only, for
> the socialist more correctly recognizes, if only
> slightly, that interest is merely a subcategory of
> profit.
>
> In either case, the "solution" is the spanner in the
> works of the market economy.
>
> And with the spanner goes the hope for economic
> democracy.
> -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
> William,
>
> But the interest paid by the banks is much less than
> that exacted on loans and you have not accounted for
> the fact that lending is the only source of new money
> to pay yesterday's interest.
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: ijccr-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: ijccr-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: ijccr-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> IJCCR website: http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/ijccr
>
>
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message